Just to head off the standard comments about how Germany and Europe are falling to the Muslim hordes: It is ethnic Germans who are most eager to go after this kind of thing; it is how they enact and and enforce their idea of 'tolerance.'
I think we can boil it down further than ethnic Germans to the most dangerous demographic the world has ever seen:
Affluent white liberal females.
The West is failing because it stopped honoring masculine order and started rewarding feminine ego detached from reality and responsibility.
The most "racist" guy you know would still save a brown man from a burning building. The supposed "least" racist woman you know would laugh at your funeral if you voted wrong.
The more liberal women I meet. the more I understand why liberal men are either gay or "neutered".
That said, multiculturalism is a misnomer because it excludes the native culture. Its erasure disguised as tolerance. They defame cultural integrity by labeling it hate. It's like a theif calling you greedy for protecting your belongings. The reciever always preaches the virtues of generosity while collecting.
I've been a paid subscriber for 6 years so I'm just going to say what most sane people think:
ISLAM IS NOT A RELIGION OF PEACE.
If they were than you would hear their leaders denounce the actions of fundamentalist. There's a reason nearly 70% of Muslim-Americans when polled about whether 9/11 was justified said yes.
That's the truth. Which brings me to my last point:
No one, and I mean nobody, is labeled as mentally unstable more than the one who sees through the bullshit. No one is gossiped about more than the one who is truly authentic. No one is smeared and called crazy more than a truth-teller Because no one is more feared than the one who speaks it like it is.
Its gotten to the point in the US that living the American dream is living as far away from leftist as possible.
This aligns very well with what I wrote. I've watched the demise of Germany since 1979, 1883-4 and since moving here in 2005. Oh, and yes, as a US Marine, I saw the effects of Islam firsthand.
Plus Germans have to quit the self imposed guilt trip surrounding WW2. they're 4 generations removed. Its bordering on how absurd it is for white people in America having guilt over slavery.
I was in university in the USA in the early 80s. I wanted to study Law, and started with political science as a Major. If that's not an oxymoron, I don't know what is. The Professor was even then, a leftistwingnut. I changed majors right quick. Economics, Computer Science, and English as a minor. Yes, I had two majors as well as a minor. I never wanted to bale hay again, load UPS trucks at night or cut lawns. I only did ROTC for the time on the range for bullets I did not have to reload. That got me into trouble later when I went into the Marines as an IT specialist. You sign on the line, and then they define where you go. Even so. I'm Semper FI.
FYI - Focal Points is running scared from (a.k.a deleting) comments that say the truth about Islam’s foundational doctrine and treatment of women and infidels.
This is ONE factor stimulating the current domestic migration from blue to red states -- although I've never gotten used to those designations, which grew from Election TV programs that colored Republican victories red when ideologically, all Leftist parties including the Democrats should be colored red -- all being Marx's spawn.
Historically, they alternated red and blue between presidential elections, to be "fair." The Bush/Gore "extended" election count resulted in networks independently adopting a consensus color standard so their nightly progress reports would not be confusing. The terms "red states and blue states" came into vogue during this count, and stuck.
That's the official story, anyway. My tinfoil hat continues to insist that money or power changed hands to ensure that Democrats would not be assigned their rightful Soviet legacy.
Bravo! Brilliant! Outstanding!!!!!! and hard as frozen iron....it's the solid truth. As a fellow American held hostage in a Blue state (WA), you nailed it.
I have spent a lot of time in FL. Love it. Spent several winters down there, riding motorcycles all over the place. My brother and riding buddy is in Kissimmee. I've attended Bike Week 8 years running. I have a lot of friends there. Alas, our daughter and husband, the son I never had are settled in their careers here. My wife will not even think of moving away from them. We've been married for 47 years. I like the state, hate the Dems. Hate everything they say and do. I appreciate the offer. Were I to move down... I really like the small town of Pearson, just West of Daytona. Central rural. Awesome.
Men blaming women, even a segment, like ‘liberal affluent white women” aren’t looking far enough back in history. Women’s roles, from midwifery to herbalism, have been appropriated by orthodox, patriarchal men, for centuries. Perhaps considering the box women had been forced into prior to the eruptions of feminism would broaden the perspective on our current predicaments.
You're sorta missing the point. I'm all for women being equal to men, but in their lane. Same for men.
Examples:
Nobody will ever raise a child as well as their mother (a good one that is)
You might not think the so-called "patriarchy" was too bad if you were forced into a foxhole during a war. Or if you had to be defended from another male who would do you harm.
I could go on forever.
I blame weak men just as much. Example:
Why are we preparing young girls for danger, instead of removing the people who create it?
We are where we are in this country and world because men are either incapable of or refuse to be strong. It's not all about "liberal white women". Strong men would tune that shit out. It's not "Muslims" necessarily. Strong men (would and have!) spank them back to the stone age.
Half of men today are WEAK!
When I was growing up every able body male would pummel another man if he put a female in danger.
I dunno, maybe male "baristas" don't deserve tips...and they should go pour some concrete you fuckin pussy's.
But, hey maybe im just a cantankerous middle-aged guy who wants to go back to the time when Pizza Hut had their salad bar.
I think the part that may have been missed by the person criticizing was the intent of liberal white female. I'm female. Debatable whether I'm white or not. But I'm much more conservative than most of my peers. And while I hold a position of power in my career and do care about exercising that power appropriately and only when needed, I am not pussy-footed or weak-kneed about feelings - I learned how men interact in the business world and toughened up when I was younger, and learned that clarity is most important, along with clear expectation. The problem with the group of women that you're labeling as liberal women is that they think feelings are more important than facts and that effort counts more than actual results.
I view that perspective as patently incorrect. That doesn't mean I have to be mean - but it also means if someone doesn't do their job and there's no training that will rectify it, then I'm going to let them go - no holding their hand and making sure they feel ok about it. I believe that we are all equal in terms of being able to put in effort and make a difference if we choose - but that doesn't mean having things handed to us on a silver platter or that it will be easy, I've worked extraordinarily hard to get to where I am. I am successful and respected. But not liberal.
That being said - I think the real liberal woman you're complaining about is the extreme left nutty woman who is provided for by a husband who makes a lot of money so she's financially secure enough to worry about luxury causes, and doesn't have to put in the work to change anything. Those true leftwing ideals are only possible in the face of either extreme laziness and willingness to live off the hardwork of others, or for those who are so financially secure that they don't have to ever think about paying bills or buying groceries.
I wasn’t talking about equality, as we commonly understand it now. I am wholeheartedly for men and women having roles appropriate to their strengths. Possibly though, equality of importance is a better concept than equating the sexes unilaterally?
Young women are pressured far too much to forgo family and pursue careers, just because ‘equality’. If women want to become physicists, it should be because they love physics, not ‘girl boss’. Likewise, men are pushed too hard to reject their masculine impulses, especially those to protect and support women.
What I am saying is that instead of knee jerk saying ‘some women bad’ and ‘some men bad’, why not ask what has happened to women and men?
Men protecting and providing for women I don’t think was ever the main problem. It was that men took many of women’s traditional roles and barred them from the masculinized replacements they created, like physicians replacing midwives.
They also kept women out of purely intellectual pursuits, like physics or science. They subjugated women as intellectually inferior, because controlling the intellectual sphere allowed them to better control women. Ben Franklin interestingly was a vocal critic of the puritanical obsession with keeping women uneducated and judged only by their chastity and piety.
Men in seeking to have total control over reproduction and women’s bodies subsequently erased many of women’s traditional roles and appropriated them for themselves, yet are now upset that women came after men’s traditional roles, without seeing the broader historical context.
Giving women equal access to all men’s spaces isn’t the answer, as it’s clearly not led us to harmony or complementarity. I am thinking the equal opportunity laws were even a mistake, because now women can’t restrict men from jobs like obstetrics. They equalitied themselves out of their own spaces. Has obstetrics as a male profession also suppressed men’s protective instincts, by forcing them to accept that any random dude with a degree can put his hands all up in their wives’ and daughters’ hoohahs?
Priests also essentially adopted dresses and monopolized for centuries the moral and social development of all children. They vilified ancient traditions that had channeled women’s energies and empathies for thousands of years. Myths that men and women lived by were obliterated. Stories and rituals that guided them through life were replaced with ‘women should be quiet and men do everything else’, which is more Roman than Christian, but that’s another discussion.
Obstetrics and pharmaceuticals have appropriated the spaces that midwifery and herbalism held.
Silencing women and taking their traditional roles has led us as much to where we are, if not more so, than feminism’s mirror image vilification of men. But, both have contributed.
Women did get misdirected in women’s lib in seeking to ‘equalize’ all men’s spaces, for sure. But, why did that happen in the first place? Patriarchy wasn’t all bad, but it definitely went way too far in many respects.
The response to women’s liberation wasn’t, hey, maybe we should give women back their wild womanhood and center society around family again, instead of industry. It was, let’s drug the ever living crap out of women to make them less ‘womany’.
Synthetic hormones and SSRIs aren’t exactly good for your mental or emotional well being, but they are the direct result of men wanting to even out women’s cycles, emotions and feelings.
Conversely, many men then became petulant, whiney, irresponsible sex pests. In that, I agree, many men are acting passive and weak, but also aggressive, in all the wrong places.
I could also go on and on.
I am just weary of hearing men blame women or feminists or whatever, without asking what got us here? Vilifying men and characterizing healthy masculinity as toxic is a dead end as well.
Can we ask what were the negative, insulting aspects of patriarchy and what were its beneficial bits? How can we look back beyond even that and ask, how did men and women partner in healthy ways? What aspects of women’s wisdom were appreciated before they were sidelined as old wives tales?
Older religions acknowledged the deep connection women had to natural cycles. They cautioned against disrespecting the dark sides of both masculinity and femininity at our peril.
Christianity often gets blamed for obliterating folk knowledge and traditions, but the Romans and Greeks began that process well before it and even Romanized Christianity toward that end.
So, because vilifying women in the first place, imho, had a huge part in bringing us to our current dysfunction, I just don’t see it being constructive now.
I am not excusing the unhinged behavior of anyone, but instead suggesting that some of us can learn to work together again and set an example for moving forward?
Really? Haven't yhe Germans found a way to get over that yet? Especially the younger ones who were not there then.
Do none of them see a close alighnemt of views towards others between the National Socialists and the Islamists, Hamas and Hezbollah. Don't they see that?
Having been brought up in a church that made its bones by weaponizing ancestral guilt and shame like virtuosos for millennia, I can't blame populations for succumbing to such maniplation. But it's like bad breath -- once it's been pointed out to you, you no longer have a good excuse for not doing something about it.
Okay; I read this after my post. So I'll add a comment, in light of this.
Tolerance does not mean acceptance. It means that you will take note of the ideas that disagree with your own; to live and let live. Those government goons need to know what tolerance really means.
Hmm…a video can be pronounced criminal, , while that thousand years of history published in text and history books purchased from Amazon or Library of Congress are somehow legal.
These globalists don't particularly care for the truth. See the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, which found against a woman for saying that Muhammad was a pedo - something that's not even in dispute.
I knew civilization was rushing into the abyss when a government official who used the word "niggardly" 100% correctly and in appropriate subject matter (a budget discussion) was sued by an ignorant black colleague... and lost.
yes, if it offends some religious group and raises the likelihood of rioting or some other unrest, it may be illegal under StGB §166. I changed the article text to clarify this. because many Muslims do not have the same good humour as Christians this law makes it potentially illegal to say many things about Islam that it is totally fine to say about Christianity. one of various reasons this whole statute belongs in the trash.
Ok, well, a bunch of Christians have to get offended at this investigation and create unrest and protest because what the state is doing may be illegal under StGB (squiggly)166, as well as any Muslims that may be offended by it too. (I know they will get arrested, but the law is written in away where you can apply it that liberally).
Muslims can get nailed under these statutes too, but the authorities are focussed primarily on political Islamist content. Meanwhile, the NGO internet enforcement apparatus targets mainly content and content creators they consider right-wing.
In my line of federally funded research, I constantly see proposals to use AI to "regulate" misinformation, disinformation, and generally police what people are allowed to say and see on the Internet. I wonder how many of these cases originated from AI trawling through social media and randomly flagging some nobody for using the wrong phrase.
This increasingly my suspicion too, hard to understand otherwise how the flaggers even find these little homemade videos buried on 1k-subscriber YouTube channels. And we've had a few suspicious cases based on literal errors, suggesting that somebody (something) is creating and searching automatically generated transcripts.
"In ABC's [197] TV pilot movie Earth II, residents of a near-future space station watch 'Discussion and Decision' (D&D), a televised direct democracy debate. A computer provides soft-voiced, real-time fact-checking of speakers' claims for viewers."
If you can find it, watch that scene... just to feel your nape hairs rise. I suspect the writers thought they were previewing Utopia.
I see it psychologically, based on eugy's valuable observation that it's not German Muslims (long-established or recently arrived) who are powering this: it's white, vaguely-Christian German "Tugendmenschen".
It rests on the delusion that Germany (or any other Western country) has attained such a perfect, righteous, perhaps even post-scarcity near-Eden level that expending effort stamping hard on so-called "hate-speakers/thinkers" makes perfect sense, as the last little thing necessary before Perfect Perfection is achieved.
Of course, it just _might_ be displacement activity, because in actual fact both Germany and every other Western country are full of very difficult problems. Much easier to let out your dissatisfaction by stamping on a couple of obscure, evangelical-Christian "Nazis", than to actually face these problems!
Will the fact finding of the trial require any determination of the veracity of the youtubers' statements? Will the defense be able to present evidence that Hamas does wish to kill all the Jews? That would make an interesting trial. Are there organizations that will help fund the defense, like we have in the US?
I'm pretty sure the answer to each question posed is "no". Rest assured, though, that the if they are charged, the Youtubers will hire an attorney or attorneys who will bring up all of your points before trial, and that may well embarrass the state into dropping any charges they might file.
“Prosecutors believe these statements may violate Section 166 of the German Criminal Code, which prohibits the “Revilement of religious faiths and religious and ideological communities.” Specifically, StGB §166 makes it illegal to publish content that disparages “the religion or ideology of others” or “a church or other religious or ideological community in Germany … in a manner suited to causing a disturbance of the public peace.”
On the basis of that Section of the Criminal Code alone, Islam itself and its Quran could be prosecuted for their flagrant anti-Semitic references and ideologies.
'....content that disparages “the religion or ideology of others” or “a church or other religious or ideological community in Germany … in a manner suited to causing a disturbance of the public peace...'
Some religions enjoy causing disturbances of public peace, so they might just view this clause as invitation to disturb even more than usual, sensing they have a sympathetic ear among certain government officials
I just searched the question online. I don't doubt that some of USAID's activities are continuing in other ways, and it will rise zombielike if the Democrats win the next election.
It could theoretically live on in a hundred other entities, but USAID proper was defunded, so that arm of the octopus was cut off. It can regenerate, but it’s not that easy when the whole thing shrivels up the money flow.
The proof is circumstantial. USAID was a taxpaid slush fund for socialist programs. Trump's faction never benefited from it, so he terminated the agency. Socialist programs around the globe subsequently took visible damage. So far, it's all consistent with functional destruction.
As an atheist micro-animal, I'm indifferent to the religious aspect. However, I do object strenuously to people claiming to be morally superior telling other people what they can't say. Just this week and against my better judgment, I got ensnared in a comment thread with the infamous Renee DiResta, who we learned about in the Twitter Files as a major player in the Censorship Industrial Complex world. I thought DiResta had taken her marbles and retired under a rock. Sadly, no, and turns out she's a tireless (and tiresome) comment thread squabbler.
Here in the US at least, the election of Trump helped a lot of people to wake up from the bad dream of woke hubristic moralizing. Watching the increasing insanity in Europe and Canada, it's scary to think that our delicate beachhead of relative reason might be swamped in the next election rather than rippling outward.
As a Roman Catholic I find the Europe-wide stance to religious tolerance is 'any of the above' except Christians.
There is a distinct bias - something other religions feel they also suffer. In essence globalist liberals who sooooo don't believe find the whole religion 'thing' distasteful to the point they only tolerate things that serve political purposes.
Further, the commentary by any Christian group has to be in accordance with the words of Jesus our Saviour, which is to only tell the truth - if not, then that's wrong.
If the truth is published elsewhere, and those who publish it stand by it (Hamas et al), then making those not living in the Middle East aware of this without distortion or embellishment is far from harmful.
The dynamic you point out here is aided and abetted by His Holiness - who is nothing but courageous when speaking against the United States' domestic and foregin policy, for example, but utters not one word against political Islam (or Iranian domestic or foreign policy) - no doubt out of fear of being targeted for assassincation (i.e. cowardice).
Is cowardice orthogonal to hypocrisy? We're talking about the guy who claims our border wall and our second amendment are immoral, yet lives behind a border wall guarded by Swiss soldiers with machine guns.
Will they also be opening an enquiry into Trump? I know that killing the leader of one faith and threatening another doesn’t count. But he did make some off-key remarks about Allah.
Meh. I live within walking distance of the place. It's no Garden of Eden, but does offer an above-ground oasis with plentiful wildlife (both salutary and toxic).
Just to head off the standard comments about how Germany and Europe are falling to the Muslim hordes: It is ethnic Germans who are most eager to go after this kind of thing; it is how they enact and and enforce their idea of 'tolerance.'
I think we can boil it down further than ethnic Germans to the most dangerous demographic the world has ever seen:
Affluent white liberal females.
The West is failing because it stopped honoring masculine order and started rewarding feminine ego detached from reality and responsibility.
The most "racist" guy you know would still save a brown man from a burning building. The supposed "least" racist woman you know would laugh at your funeral if you voted wrong.
The more liberal women I meet. the more I understand why liberal men are either gay or "neutered".
That said, multiculturalism is a misnomer because it excludes the native culture. Its erasure disguised as tolerance. They defame cultural integrity by labeling it hate. It's like a theif calling you greedy for protecting your belongings. The reciever always preaches the virtues of generosity while collecting.
I've been a paid subscriber for 6 years so I'm just going to say what most sane people think:
ISLAM IS NOT A RELIGION OF PEACE.
If they were than you would hear their leaders denounce the actions of fundamentalist. There's a reason nearly 70% of Muslim-Americans when polled about whether 9/11 was justified said yes.
That's the truth. Which brings me to my last point:
No one, and I mean nobody, is labeled as mentally unstable more than the one who sees through the bullshit. No one is gossiped about more than the one who is truly authentic. No one is smeared and called crazy more than a truth-teller Because no one is more feared than the one who speaks it like it is.
Its gotten to the point in the US that living the American dream is living as far away from leftist as possible.
As usual Ryan, right on freaking target.
Thx, man!
Just seems obvious to me. Well at least since the scamdemic
Absofreakinglutely.
We all learned a lot of things that as Reagan said, "just ain't so" during the darkness we now call the "Great Scamdemic".
Ryan, you gotta get the order right. Affluent white female liberal (not liberal female). Because they are AWFL
I always put it as Affluent White Female Urban Leftist. Because, as you say, they're AWFUL.
Nice
You're right!
The great green dragon
This aligns very well with what I wrote. I've watched the demise of Germany since 1979, 1883-4 and since moving here in 2005. Oh, and yes, as a US Marine, I saw the effects of Islam firsthand.
Yeah you said it well.
Plus Germans have to quit the self imposed guilt trip surrounding WW2. they're 4 generations removed. Its bordering on how absurd it is for white people in America having guilt over slavery.
I was in university in the USA in the early 80s. I wanted to study Law, and started with political science as a Major. If that's not an oxymoron, I don't know what is. The Professor was even then, a leftistwingnut. I changed majors right quick. Economics, Computer Science, and English as a minor. Yes, I had two majors as well as a minor. I never wanted to bale hay again, load UPS trucks at night or cut lawns. I only did ROTC for the time on the range for bullets I did not have to reload. That got me into trouble later when I went into the Marines as an IT specialist. You sign on the line, and then they define where you go. Even so. I'm Semper FI.
So true especially in southern states. So unnecessary.
No joke. Enough already.
FYI - Focal Points is running scared from (a.k.a deleting) comments that say the truth about Islam’s foundational doctrine and treatment of women and infidels.
What is Focal Point? Im unfamiliar
John Leake / Peter McCullough
This is ONE factor stimulating the current domestic migration from blue to red states -- although I've never gotten used to those designations, which grew from Election TV programs that colored Republican victories red when ideologically, all Leftist parties including the Democrats should be colored red -- all being Marx's spawn.
Historically, they alternated red and blue between presidential elections, to be "fair." The Bush/Gore "extended" election count resulted in networks independently adopting a consensus color standard so their nightly progress reports would not be confusing. The terms "red states and blue states" came into vogue during this count, and stuck.
That's the official story, anyway. My tinfoil hat continues to insist that money or power changed hands to ensure that Democrats would not be assigned their rightful Soviet legacy.
That may be true, more like RED/GREEN lately.
Bravo! Brilliant! Outstanding!!!!!! and hard as frozen iron....it's the solid truth. As a fellow American held hostage in a Blue state (WA), you nailed it.
Come to Florida, man. I'll show you around. You smell freedom in the air.
I grew up in San Diego, but had to seek refuge, so I moved my family to Florida at the beginning of the plandemic.
It was the final straw. The leftist are trying to destroy, perhaps the most beautiful city in our country.
I have spent a lot of time in FL. Love it. Spent several winters down there, riding motorcycles all over the place. My brother and riding buddy is in Kissimmee. I've attended Bike Week 8 years running. I have a lot of friends there. Alas, our daughter and husband, the son I never had are settled in their careers here. My wife will not even think of moving away from them. We've been married for 47 years. I like the state, hate the Dems. Hate everything they say and do. I appreciate the offer. Were I to move down... I really like the small town of Pearson, just West of Daytona. Central rural. Awesome.
Your piece was fantastic.
Men blaming women, even a segment, like ‘liberal affluent white women” aren’t looking far enough back in history. Women’s roles, from midwifery to herbalism, have been appropriated by orthodox, patriarchal men, for centuries. Perhaps considering the box women had been forced into prior to the eruptions of feminism would broaden the perspective on our current predicaments.
You're sorta missing the point. I'm all for women being equal to men, but in their lane. Same for men.
Examples:
Nobody will ever raise a child as well as their mother (a good one that is)
You might not think the so-called "patriarchy" was too bad if you were forced into a foxhole during a war. Or if you had to be defended from another male who would do you harm.
I could go on forever.
I blame weak men just as much. Example:
Why are we preparing young girls for danger, instead of removing the people who create it?
We are where we are in this country and world because men are either incapable of or refuse to be strong. It's not all about "liberal white women". Strong men would tune that shit out. It's not "Muslims" necessarily. Strong men (would and have!) spank them back to the stone age.
Half of men today are WEAK!
When I was growing up every able body male would pummel another man if he put a female in danger.
I dunno, maybe male "baristas" don't deserve tips...and they should go pour some concrete you fuckin pussy's.
But, hey maybe im just a cantankerous middle-aged guy who wants to go back to the time when Pizza Hut had their salad bar.
I think the part that may have been missed by the person criticizing was the intent of liberal white female. I'm female. Debatable whether I'm white or not. But I'm much more conservative than most of my peers. And while I hold a position of power in my career and do care about exercising that power appropriately and only when needed, I am not pussy-footed or weak-kneed about feelings - I learned how men interact in the business world and toughened up when I was younger, and learned that clarity is most important, along with clear expectation. The problem with the group of women that you're labeling as liberal women is that they think feelings are more important than facts and that effort counts more than actual results.
I view that perspective as patently incorrect. That doesn't mean I have to be mean - but it also means if someone doesn't do their job and there's no training that will rectify it, then I'm going to let them go - no holding their hand and making sure they feel ok about it. I believe that we are all equal in terms of being able to put in effort and make a difference if we choose - but that doesn't mean having things handed to us on a silver platter or that it will be easy, I've worked extraordinarily hard to get to where I am. I am successful and respected. But not liberal.
That being said - I think the real liberal woman you're complaining about is the extreme left nutty woman who is provided for by a husband who makes a lot of money so she's financially secure enough to worry about luxury causes, and doesn't have to put in the work to change anything. Those true leftwing ideals are only possible in the face of either extreme laziness and willingness to live off the hardwork of others, or for those who are so financially secure that they don't have to ever think about paying bills or buying groceries.
Wow. Excellent comment. Thx for sharing
I wasn’t talking about equality, as we commonly understand it now. I am wholeheartedly for men and women having roles appropriate to their strengths. Possibly though, equality of importance is a better concept than equating the sexes unilaterally?
Young women are pressured far too much to forgo family and pursue careers, just because ‘equality’. If women want to become physicists, it should be because they love physics, not ‘girl boss’. Likewise, men are pushed too hard to reject their masculine impulses, especially those to protect and support women.
What I am saying is that instead of knee jerk saying ‘some women bad’ and ‘some men bad’, why not ask what has happened to women and men?
Men protecting and providing for women I don’t think was ever the main problem. It was that men took many of women’s traditional roles and barred them from the masculinized replacements they created, like physicians replacing midwives.
They also kept women out of purely intellectual pursuits, like physics or science. They subjugated women as intellectually inferior, because controlling the intellectual sphere allowed them to better control women. Ben Franklin interestingly was a vocal critic of the puritanical obsession with keeping women uneducated and judged only by their chastity and piety.
Men in seeking to have total control over reproduction and women’s bodies subsequently erased many of women’s traditional roles and appropriated them for themselves, yet are now upset that women came after men’s traditional roles, without seeing the broader historical context.
Giving women equal access to all men’s spaces isn’t the answer, as it’s clearly not led us to harmony or complementarity. I am thinking the equal opportunity laws were even a mistake, because now women can’t restrict men from jobs like obstetrics. They equalitied themselves out of their own spaces. Has obstetrics as a male profession also suppressed men’s protective instincts, by forcing them to accept that any random dude with a degree can put his hands all up in their wives’ and daughters’ hoohahs?
Priests also essentially adopted dresses and monopolized for centuries the moral and social development of all children. They vilified ancient traditions that had channeled women’s energies and empathies for thousands of years. Myths that men and women lived by were obliterated. Stories and rituals that guided them through life were replaced with ‘women should be quiet and men do everything else’, which is more Roman than Christian, but that’s another discussion.
Obstetrics and pharmaceuticals have appropriated the spaces that midwifery and herbalism held.
Silencing women and taking their traditional roles has led us as much to where we are, if not more so, than feminism’s mirror image vilification of men. But, both have contributed.
Women did get misdirected in women’s lib in seeking to ‘equalize’ all men’s spaces, for sure. But, why did that happen in the first place? Patriarchy wasn’t all bad, but it definitely went way too far in many respects.
The response to women’s liberation wasn’t, hey, maybe we should give women back their wild womanhood and center society around family again, instead of industry. It was, let’s drug the ever living crap out of women to make them less ‘womany’.
Synthetic hormones and SSRIs aren’t exactly good for your mental or emotional well being, but they are the direct result of men wanting to even out women’s cycles, emotions and feelings.
Conversely, many men then became petulant, whiney, irresponsible sex pests. In that, I agree, many men are acting passive and weak, but also aggressive, in all the wrong places.
I could also go on and on.
I am just weary of hearing men blame women or feminists or whatever, without asking what got us here? Vilifying men and characterizing healthy masculinity as toxic is a dead end as well.
Can we ask what were the negative, insulting aspects of patriarchy and what were its beneficial bits? How can we look back beyond even that and ask, how did men and women partner in healthy ways? What aspects of women’s wisdom were appreciated before they were sidelined as old wives tales?
Older religions acknowledged the deep connection women had to natural cycles. They cautioned against disrespecting the dark sides of both masculinity and femininity at our peril.
Christianity often gets blamed for obliterating folk knowledge and traditions, but the Romans and Greeks began that process well before it and even Romanized Christianity toward that end.
So, because vilifying women in the first place, imho, had a huge part in bringing us to our current dysfunction, I just don’t see it being constructive now.
I am not excusing the unhinged behavior of anyone, but instead suggesting that some of us can learn to work together again and set an example for moving forward?
I think your 3rd sentence in the first paragraph says it all.
Well thought out comment
Their appeasement translates to their shame for what happened in the early forties.
IMHO.
Really? Haven't yhe Germans found a way to get over that yet? Especially the younger ones who were not there then.
Do none of them see a close alighnemt of views towards others between the National Socialists and the Islamists, Hamas and Hezbollah. Don't they see that?
Obviously not or we would see a real German effort at repatriation, energy production, and re-industrialization.
Having been brought up in a church that made its bones by weaponizing ancestral guilt and shame like virtuosos for millennia, I can't blame populations for succumbing to such maniplation. But it's like bad breath -- once it's been pointed out to you, you no longer have a good excuse for not doing something about it.
See my post...
Okay; I read this after my post. So I'll add a comment, in light of this.
Tolerance does not mean acceptance. It means that you will take note of the ideas that disagree with your own; to live and let live. Those government goons need to know what tolerance really means.
"it is how they enact and and enforce their idea of 'tolerance.'"
And as you suggest with your scare quote, rich with irony.
Also, comments yet again restricted to subscribers, because the last thing I want is a massive flamewar debating the merits of Islam. lol
Hmm…a video can be pronounced criminal, , while that thousand years of history published in text and history books purchased from Amazon or Library of Congress are somehow legal.
Neither are criminal.
Islam ISN"T a religion of peace. So there's that.
These globalists don't particularly care for the truth. See the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, which found against a woman for saying that Muhammad was a pedo - something that's not even in dispute.
I knew civilization was rushing into the abyss when a government official who used the word "niggardly" 100% correctly and in appropriate subject matter (a budget discussion) was sued by an ignorant black colleague... and lost.
I don’t see anywhere in the statute where the defendants can claim “defence of fact”.
If they said 1+1=2 the only question at law is, might some part of the community be offended.
yes, if it offends some religious group and raises the likelihood of rioting or some other unrest, it may be illegal under StGB §166. I changed the article text to clarify this. because many Muslims do not have the same good humour as Christians this law makes it potentially illegal to say many things about Islam that it is totally fine to say about Christianity. one of various reasons this whole statute belongs in the trash.
Ok, well, a bunch of Christians have to get offended at this investigation and create unrest and protest because what the state is doing may be illegal under StGB (squiggly)166, as well as any Muslims that may be offended by it too. (I know they will get arrested, but the law is written in away where you can apply it that liberally).
You can't say 1+1=10 either, because it offends the non-binary people.
Excellent
Is it just easier to fight Christians because they don’t fight back with violence?
Muslims can get nailed under these statutes too, but the authorities are focussed primarily on political Islamist content. Meanwhile, the NGO internet enforcement apparatus targets mainly content and content creators they consider right-wing.
Yes.
In my line of federally funded research, I constantly see proposals to use AI to "regulate" misinformation, disinformation, and generally police what people are allowed to say and see on the Internet. I wonder how many of these cases originated from AI trawling through social media and randomly flagging some nobody for using the wrong phrase.
This increasingly my suspicion too, hard to understand otherwise how the flaggers even find these little homemade videos buried on 1k-subscriber YouTube channels. And we've had a few suspicious cases based on literal errors, suggesting that somebody (something) is creating and searching automatically generated transcripts.
"In ABC's [197] TV pilot movie Earth II, residents of a near-future space station watch 'Discussion and Decision' (D&D), a televised direct democracy debate. A computer provides soft-voiced, real-time fact-checking of speakers' claims for viewers."
If you can find it, watch that scene... just to feel your nape hairs rise. I suspect the writers thought they were previewing Utopia.
https://www.reddit.com/r/scifi/comments/1g3xq19/ai_fact_checking_1971_style/
What makes me angry is that they're actively looking for videos like this just so they can make problems for people. It's malicious.
yep.
I see it psychologically, based on eugy's valuable observation that it's not German Muslims (long-established or recently arrived) who are powering this: it's white, vaguely-Christian German "Tugendmenschen".
It rests on the delusion that Germany (or any other Western country) has attained such a perfect, righteous, perhaps even post-scarcity near-Eden level that expending effort stamping hard on so-called "hate-speakers/thinkers" makes perfect sense, as the last little thing necessary before Perfect Perfection is achieved.
Of course, it just _might_ be displacement activity, because in actual fact both Germany and every other Western country are full of very difficult problems. Much easier to let out your dissatisfaction by stamping on a couple of obscure, evangelical-Christian "Nazis", than to actually face these problems!
Will the fact finding of the trial require any determination of the veracity of the youtubers' statements? Will the defense be able to present evidence that Hamas does wish to kill all the Jews? That would make an interesting trial. Are there organizations that will help fund the defense, like we have in the US?
I'm pretty sure the answer to each question posed is "no". Rest assured, though, that the if they are charged, the Youtubers will hire an attorney or attorneys who will bring up all of your points before trial, and that may well embarrass the state into dropping any charges they might file.
Is truth a defense in Germany in relation to this statute?
Of course, there is still a journalist here who is fighting a perhaps losing battle because he had a swastika on a mask on his writings about the plandemic. https://rairfoundation.com/germany-targets-american-writer-facing-jail-satirical-swastika/
The entire German government hates, reviles, and disparages the ideology of Martin Sellner. Put the whole German government in the dock.
“Prosecutors believe these statements may violate Section 166 of the German Criminal Code, which prohibits the “Revilement of religious faiths and religious and ideological communities.” Specifically, StGB §166 makes it illegal to publish content that disparages “the religion or ideology of others” or “a church or other religious or ideological community in Germany … in a manner suited to causing a disturbance of the public peace.”
On the basis of that Section of the Criminal Code alone, Islam itself and its Quran could be prosecuted for their flagrant anti-Semitic references and ideologies.
Rules for thee but not for me.
In other words: the German establishment has been cowed into putting Islam on a tall pedestal, exempt from criticism and untouchable by critics.
Or -- the German establishment has been conned into outlawing the very sect they were trying to protect from criticism.
It happens. Witness the boomerang effect of the "#MeToo" movement on Democrats.
Yes, the logical end point of this is book banning, which justifies book burning - German history rhyming with itself again....
So what about the calls from jihad by the Muslims? From the River to the Sea? Isn’t that also covered by the law? Or is the law only anti-Christian?
There have been a few prosecutions for "From the river to the sea," and "yalla yalla intifada" – with mixed results.
Is Kaybar Kaybar ya Yahud hunky dory?
'....content that disparages “the religion or ideology of others” or “a church or other religious or ideological community in Germany … in a manner suited to causing a disturbance of the public peace...'
Some religions enjoy causing disturbances of public peace, so they might just view this clause as invitation to disturb even more than usual, sensing they have a sympathetic ear among certain government officials
Indeed. Taking a leaf from the British dystopian public order playbook. Just another name for mob rule
Cringeworthy. The internet censorship NGOs who (likely) tipped off YouTube and the German government are probably funded by USAID and EU.
USAID is defunct now. It was (thankfully) effectively dismantled and dissolved during the second Trump administration in 2025.
Is there any solid proof of that? In this age of words mean what we say they do, did USAID shape shift to some other entity?
I just searched the question online. I don't doubt that some of USAID's activities are continuing in other ways, and it will rise zombielike if the Democrats win the next election.
It could theoretically live on in a hundred other entities, but USAID proper was defunded, so that arm of the octopus was cut off. It can regenerate, but it’s not that easy when the whole thing shrivels up the money flow.
The proof is circumstantial. USAID was a taxpaid slush fund for socialist programs. Trump's faction never benefited from it, so he terminated the agency. Socialist programs around the globe subsequently took visible damage. So far, it's all consistent with functional destruction.
As an atheist micro-animal, I'm indifferent to the religious aspect. However, I do object strenuously to people claiming to be morally superior telling other people what they can't say. Just this week and against my better judgment, I got ensnared in a comment thread with the infamous Renee DiResta, who we learned about in the Twitter Files as a major player in the Censorship Industrial Complex world. I thought DiResta had taken her marbles and retired under a rock. Sadly, no, and turns out she's a tireless (and tiresome) comment thread squabbler.
Here in the US at least, the election of Trump helped a lot of people to wake up from the bad dream of woke hubristic moralizing. Watching the increasing insanity in Europe and Canada, it's scary to think that our delicate beachhead of relative reason might be swamped in the next election rather than rippling outward.
As a Roman Catholic I find the Europe-wide stance to religious tolerance is 'any of the above' except Christians.
There is a distinct bias - something other religions feel they also suffer. In essence globalist liberals who sooooo don't believe find the whole religion 'thing' distasteful to the point they only tolerate things that serve political purposes.
Further, the commentary by any Christian group has to be in accordance with the words of Jesus our Saviour, which is to only tell the truth - if not, then that's wrong.
If the truth is published elsewhere, and those who publish it stand by it (Hamas et al), then making those not living in the Middle East aware of this without distortion or embellishment is far from harmful.
The dynamic you point out here is aided and abetted by His Holiness - who is nothing but courageous when speaking against the United States' domestic and foregin policy, for example, but utters not one word against political Islam (or Iranian domestic or foreign policy) - no doubt out of fear of being targeted for assassincation (i.e. cowardice).
BINGO.
Proved my point. QED.
Or, as you say, 'bingo'.
Is cowardice orthogonal to hypocrisy? We're talking about the guy who claims our border wall and our second amendment are immoral, yet lives behind a border wall guarded by Swiss soldiers with machine guns.
They might be orthogonal, but they can certainly be correlated.
How very school-marm of the government. "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all."
Will they also be opening an enquiry into Trump? I know that killing the leader of one faith and threatening another doesn’t count. But he did make some off-key remarks about Allah.
Meh. I live within walking distance of the place. It's no Garden of Eden, but does offer an above-ground oasis with plentiful wildlife (both salutary and toxic).
https://mapcarta.com/23448034